December 8, 2025 • 18 mins
Week 2 of the Brian Walshe trial is underway, but on Friday jurors heard texts Walshe sent to his missing wife’s phone well after he knew she was already dead. The prosecution revealed a series of texts in the hours and days following Ana Walshe’s death, feigning concern about her and expressing his love for her. However, the defense made some impressive progress during cross examination, chipping away at premeditation, showing other texts and searches that reveal a loving husband who seemed unaware his wife was having an affair.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Hey, that folk sit is Monday, December eighth, and today
will start the second full week of testimony in the
Brian Walsh trial. And Robes can't believe we're actually sitting
here and possibly saying this. The defense had not such
a bad first week. And with that, welcome to this
episode of Amy and TJ. And we say that I
(00:22):
guess again. We've been talking to the professionals who say
this is just a stinker of a case. Guy says, yeah,
got killed. Excuse me, I dismembered and disposed of a body,
but I didn't kill a That's a tough hill to climb.
And for some reason, Robes, would you not say you
have been a little surprised at what the defense has
been able to do.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
I've been impressed because what they've been able to do
is chip away at this notion of premeditation. That is
their big problem. Well, first of all, they don't have
a body, which is a major issue because they cannot
say with any degree of certainty how on a Walsh died.
Now they don't have to prove that she's dead because
(01:02):
Brian Walsh, by admitting he dismembered and disposed of her body.
That has been taken off the table because that would
be a defense. Normally, if you didn't have a body,
you could say, prove she died, so we know she died,
and we know Brian Walsh knows she died, but we
don't know how she died. So you've got that problem.
But more importantly, their motive that Brian Walsh knew his
(01:24):
wife was having an affair with another man to prove premeditation,
that the defense has done a phenomenal job at creating
doubt about if he knew, and if he did know
when he knew.
Speaker 1 (01:39):
Yes, so this goes too right, When you don't have
a body, you don't know how someone died. Motive might
be very, very important to the jury. It's not necessary.
No law says the prosecution has to prove any motive,
but they like to.
Speaker 2 (01:53):
But motive certainly helps when you have to prove premeditation.
And because they decided to go for a first degree
murdered charge, you have to prove premeditation, and I would
think as a juror, you would kind of need motive
to believe that the murder was premeditated.
Speaker 1 (02:10):
And the motive was supposed to be at least in
part that he was upset found out I or knew
that his wife was having an affair. And last week,
certainly what was billed to be one of the most
dramatic and certainly will be one of the most dramatic moments,
is having the victims or we calling her a victim.
(02:31):
The prosecution is, the defense is saying she's died of sudden,
unexplained death. Okay, so but on a Walsh who has died.
The guy she was having an affair with got up
there on the stand. Now that's tension in the courtroom anyway,
to see Brian Walsh in there, that guy on the stand.
But Rome they made it was a big deal. The
defense asked over and over and he was clear. Anno
(02:53):
Walsh never said anything to me that suggested that she
was worried that her husband was on to us.
Speaker 2 (02:59):
And when Brian Walsh called him a couple of days
after Anna Walsh disappeared to I mean he was pretending
to ask him. He didn't pretend to ask him. He
asked him as if he didn't know where Anna Walsh was,
because he knew exactly where his wife's body was at
that point. But he was playing this worried husband didn't
know where his wife was. So even when he actually
(03:22):
called and left messages for her lover, who then called
him back, there was never an accusation or a discussion
or I know what you two have been up to.
It was just simply him saying, do you know where
Anna is? Could you go by the house. He was
their real estate agent. He sold the Walshes their home
in DC that she was living in while she worked there,
(03:42):
so there would be a reason why they would have talked.
But yeah, he never made it seem like he was
even wondering about their relationship.
Speaker 1 (03:51):
So if and to hear the guy William Fastel on
the stand, if she was concerned at all that her
husband was about to find out, obviously the first person
she would alert is this guy. For him to say,
not a moment that was significant. If I'm sitting on
(04:13):
that jury, so we are you put yourself in their position.
That brings doubt about at least that part of the motive.
I mean, he's not guilty, but at least I'm taking
that off the table. Is why he could have possibly
wanted to kill it.
Speaker 2 (04:25):
I've already seen news reports about people saying that this
does put the first degree murder charge in question with
what they've seen so far and that you know his
best he's probably hoping in the defense is hoping that somehow,
we don't know how this legally would work, but he
is obviously hoping for a second degree murder charge or
a manslaughter charge. Conviction or not guilty obviously would be
(04:46):
the number one, but he's hoping because he doesn't want
to obviously spend the rest of his life in prison,
which would be automatic if he were convicted a first
degree murder.
Speaker 1 (04:54):
I was looking at this rope to you and I
had been discussing this. I believe the defense can ask
I believe they can write that right, they can ask
for a lesser if the jury can consider a lesser charge.
Speaker 2 (05:04):
Correct, And I believe that is what they will likely do,
or at least that's what legal experts are saying after
what they've seen in this first week, that may be
what the defense will do. But the testimony today is
resuming with the chief medical examiner who was still on
the stand on Friday. He will come back today, but
he began testifying on Friday afternoon. He was telling the
(05:25):
jury about whether or not they could find or discern
any human tissue on any of those items that they
showed the jury in person from the dumpster. We're talking
about the hatchet, the hack saw. They were trying to
see if they could find any sort of human remains,
but they have not been able to find any part
(05:46):
of Anna Walsh at all, including her cell phone. Her
cell phone has never been found.
Speaker 1 (05:51):
The medicals this was the red brown staining guy. Yes,
they kept saying, repeating that I have that right. Was
it red brown stain, red brown stain? My goodness, Yes,
that was some of that Testimoni's a little grind when
you consider what potentially did happen to her. To see
some of those items, to see some of those stains, frankly,
to see a hatchet and shears and things like that.
Speaker 2 (06:09):
It was disturbing. It was disturbing. Something else that was
really interesting that happened on Friday. So they had a
digital forensic and analyst on the stand who was going
over We mentioned Ana's phone is missing, but Brian's phone.
So we've heard so much about the searches, but these
were some of the messages that were on Brian's phone
right starting. I guess they on January second. So at
(06:32):
this point, now Brian has presumably or has been in
the process of dismembering Anna's body. Clearly he knows she's
dead on January second, even by his own admission. But
when you read some of these texts that he was
sending to Anna's phone, pretending to be nervous, literally covering
(06:54):
his tracks, Yeah, it's so eerie and creepy, and it
speaks to his level of just cover up. I guess
the manipulation.
Speaker 1 (07:02):
Well, I guess that's what this whole. I mean, it's
amazing to think that he thought this through to try
to cover tracks and to send these, but never gave
any thought to all those searches and anybody's going to
see those.
Speaker 2 (07:17):
It's busy how to get rid of a body after
a murder, right, Yeah, but so he left those searches
to be found by forensic experts. But listen to some
of these texts. We'll read them for you, because it
just speaks to his ability to manipulate and lie and
thinking that this was going to get him out of something.
So on January tewod he sends this text to his
(07:42):
dead wife Anna, Hello, Thomas found the phone playing on
William's bed exclamation point. William said he forgot it was there.
Exclamation point haha, Okay, call any time. So he's talking
about their kids to her again she's dead. Then about
five hours later he writes, Hello, where are you? Please call,
(08:03):
text or email. Exhausting day with the boys and we
had fun going to bed early. Big day tomorrow for everyone.
I still love you three exclamation points. Haha, I don't know.
Speaker 1 (08:16):
Yeah, he's trying to set up a trail that he
thinks is going to save him, or at least suggest
his innocence that he was concerned about his wife and
I had no idea she was missing.
Speaker 2 (08:27):
Let's move on to the next day, January third, Hello,
this is at six point thirty nine am. Where are you.
I'm worried. Please call or email. Two hours later, where
are you? I just called and it went straight to voicemail,
calling you in Viber. Now maybe he meant to say, uber,
I will call after I drop the boys. If I
(08:47):
don't hear from you this morning, I am going to
report you missing. Four hours later, Hello, I texted your
sister and Alyssa. I am calling Jeff if I don't
hear from you, Where are you seven hours later, Hello,
where are you? The boys and I are worried. I'm
calling work tomorrow if I don't hear from you. So
still now this is January third. He hasn't heard from
(09:08):
her since January one, still hasn't called police, which of itself.
Speaker 1 (09:14):
I don't care what kind of relationship you have. You
don't have him your spouse for forty eight hours, right,
you're going to send a text saying where are you?
Speaker 2 (09:23):
So yes, and then like with lots of exclamation points.
And then January fourth, so again, this is the day
where her work actually reported on a missing He did not.
He texts where are you? With like seven question marks
at ten o'clock in the morning and then says, I
am calling Jeff. Now I believe Jeff was her boss
at work. But again, we don't even have word that
(09:44):
that happened. He just he was trying to leave messages
for police to find later, to show that he was
worried about his wife, even though he never called them
to tell them that she was missing.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
I think that's probably somewhere and like police on one, if
a spouse is missing and she's reported missing by someone
other than her spouse, immediately arrest like spouse, arrest that person.
You don't report, sweetheart, I know if you know, that's
(10:17):
that in of itself. Okay, we get it, and you
try to leave open this possibility. Robe and a reminder, folks,
he says, and his defense is claiming he went upstairs
after going downstairs to clean the kitchen, went back upstairs.
This is New Year's Day. She's on the bed dead,
doesn't know how she died completely unexplained, So sudden unexplained death,
(10:39):
which is something in the medical community that's out there.
It happens, we're going to have to hear some expert testimony,
are we not robes at some point in this trial
from some doctor saying this is possible.
Speaker 2 (10:51):
I think everyone agrees, especially when you heard Larry Tipton's
opening statement to the jury. They absolutely implied that they
were going to provide an explanation from an expert to
discuss how they are proposing on a Walsh actually died.
But it is interesting, and when we come back, we
(11:11):
will talk about the inroads the defense made on cross examination.
So we just read to you those text messages that
are pretty damning when we know what we know now
about where he was in this process of disposing of
his wife's body and yet leaving these apparent text messages
to her. Well, the defense made some major headway on
(11:33):
cross examination with that same witness on Friday, and this
again goes to motive. They are tearing apart the prosecution's
case that he knew about his wife's affair. And welcome
(11:56):
back everyone, we are talking about the Brian Walsh trial. Well,
week two is now officially underway, but last week there
was some pretty incredible testimony and a lot of the
progress made was by the defense. On Friday, Larry Tipton,
we have been talking about how phenomenal of a job
(12:17):
he's been doing so far. In the first word out
of his mouth, yes, I mean you knew that Brian
Walsh was getting as good of a defense and legal
representation as you could possibly get, because this is a
tough case from any defense attorney's perspective. You've got a
lot of really damaging, almost seemingly impossible evidence to overcome
(12:41):
when you look and see what the prosecution is presenting
about Brian Walsh's role in his wife's disappearance and murder.
But this is what Larry Tipton was able to chip
away at premeditation. With this witness that was on the
stand on Friday, talking about those text messages, talking about
those searches, he made this point there were no searches
(13:02):
about how to dispose of a body or clean up
blood or anything that implied dealing with the murder before
the morning of January first. That's significant because if he's
putting all these searches into play and not worried about
who might find them the day that she went missing,
(13:25):
the day that she died, If he were planning this,
wouldn't you think he would have done that beforehand, or
at least was preparing in some way.
Speaker 1 (13:35):
Oh, there is enough. They have not proved motive or premeditation,
in my opinion, again, putting myself in a position if
I were sitting on that jury, that's enough for me
to quite Now. I'm still listening, prosecutors to what you got,
but at least two things you told me. This doubt
is reasonable, and you might even argue provable with some
(13:57):
of this that they're lining up. How is this man
on January twenty fifth and whatnot looking for rings for
his wife, looking for a Porsche for his wife, making
all these plans for dinner, reservations and all this stuff.
Nothing suggests again, this is before, this is before New Years,
this is before. Yes, this sounds like he is actually
(14:17):
a pretty happy in his marriage.
Speaker 2 (14:19):
Sounds like he's happy in his marriage, talking about buying
expensive champagne Zillow listings. They showed messages he had he
had this forensics digital forensics guy read aloud the messages
where the couple were exchanging I love you, love you
back and forth, lovingly sharing pictures and photos of what
they were doing. This is all between December twenty fifth
(14:41):
and December thirty first, so in that period where you
would say, or at least the prosecutors are trying to say,
he was preparing to murder his wife. All of the
messages between the two of them seemed to be loving,
and his searches up until the thirty first are all
about loving his wife and lavishing her with gifts. In fact,
they did say this was an important point they made
(15:04):
speaking of searches. On December twenty fifth, we now know
that Anna Walsh was with her lover, but her flight
actually did get canceled and he was upset about this.
They've all testified that there was a bit of a
fight between the two of them because he was upset
she wasn't with him, but his searches that day Anna
Walsh found dead Christmas Day plane crash. He was worried
(15:26):
about her. He was worried that something had happened. He
hadn't gotten worried that her flight had been canceled yet,
and he hadn't heard from her. We now know she
was with her lover, but he was afraid that something
happened to her, like in a loving, concerned way.
Speaker 1 (15:40):
I'm trying to think of the other one. But there
have been a lot of messages in internet searches and
stuff that's been shared, and then there are some that
break through that I think kind of shut the door
prove a point, right, Mike Drop that's one of them.
When you see this guy has no idea any of
this stuff is going to be seen. He's not trying
(16:00):
to stage analibi at this point. This is around Christmas,
and he's worried about where is she. That is genuinely
a dude concerned about his wife. You cannot look at
that any other way. So how do we go from
that concerned about her safety, not wondering who she with
and not looking up all these searches about some other man.
(16:22):
So how do we go from that to her dead
on January one? You cannot tell me. The motive and
the premeditation is because he's upset about his wife's affair.
Speaker 2 (16:32):
They've done a good job.
Speaker 1 (16:33):
So we are. I am blown away by this defense already.
Speaker 2 (16:36):
It is remarkable, and so in terms of what the
prosecution is expected to continue to have witnesses take this
stand for the rest of this week. The defense could
possibly get their turn by the end of this week
or the beginning of next week. But we do know
we don't know a lot about the witnesses the prosecution
is going to put out this week. They didn't give
(16:57):
a witness list on Friday, but they have said that
we're going to hear from Anna Walsh's former boss that
was the man who was with them on New Year's Eve,
and perhaps, I guess is the last person outside of
her family to have seen her alive and can speak
to what Anna and Brian were like on New Year's
(17:18):
Eve together interacting. I think that will be so fascinating.
But he is a prosecution witness, so I'm very much
looking forward to that and I think we are expecting
other investigators to continue to testify about the evidence that
they do have. But at the end of last week,
I think you and I both agree the defense has
(17:40):
done the best possible job they could have and actually
exceeded expectations.
Speaker 1 (17:45):
Given what they have to work with. So we're keeping
an eye on this. Today testimony expected to be a
full day again. Top right corner of that Apple podcast
app where you see our show page, she flicked that
button that says follow you will get these updates coming
to you, and we will have it least one, maybe
even two more today depending on what happens in the case.
But for now, for my dear Amy Robot, I'm TJ. Holmes.
(18:07):
Talk deal soon.
Hey, that folk sit is Monday, December eighth, and today
will start the second full week of testimony in the
Brian Walsh trial. And Robes can't believe we're actually sitting
here and possibly saying this. The defense had not such
a bad first week. And with that, welcome to this
episode of Amy and TJ. And we say that I
(00:22):
guess again. We've been talking to the professionals who say
this is just a stinker of a case. Guy says, yeah,
got killed. Excuse me, I dismembered and disposed of a body,
but I didn't kill a That's a tough hill to climb.
And for some reason, Robes, would you not say you
have been a little surprised at what the defense has
been able to do.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
I've been impressed because what they've been able to do
is chip away at this notion of premeditation. That is
their big problem. Well, first of all, they don't have
a body, which is a major issue because they cannot
say with any degree of certainty how on a Walsh died.
Now they don't have to prove that she's dead because
(01:02):
Brian Walsh, by admitting he dismembered and disposed of her body.
That has been taken off the table because that would
be a defense. Normally, if you didn't have a body,
you could say, prove she died, so we know she died,
and we know Brian Walsh knows she died, but we
don't know how she died. So you've got that problem.
But more importantly, their motive that Brian Walsh knew his
(01:24):
wife was having an affair with another man to prove premeditation,
that the defense has done a phenomenal job at creating
doubt about if he knew, and if he did know
when he knew.
Speaker 1 (01:39):
Yes, so this goes too right, When you don't have
a body, you don't know how someone died. Motive might
be very, very important to the jury. It's not necessary.
No law says the prosecution has to prove any motive,
but they like to.
Speaker 2 (01:53):
But motive certainly helps when you have to prove premeditation.
And because they decided to go for a first degree
murdered charge, you have to prove premeditation, and I would
think as a juror, you would kind of need motive
to believe that the murder was premeditated.
Speaker 1 (02:10):
And the motive was supposed to be at least in
part that he was upset found out I or knew
that his wife was having an affair. And last week,
certainly what was billed to be one of the most
dramatic and certainly will be one of the most dramatic moments,
is having the victims or we calling her a victim.
(02:31):
The prosecution is, the defense is saying she's died of sudden,
unexplained death. Okay, so but on a Walsh who has died.
The guy she was having an affair with got up
there on the stand. Now that's tension in the courtroom anyway,
to see Brian Walsh in there, that guy on the stand.
But Rome they made it was a big deal. The
defense asked over and over and he was clear. Anno
(02:53):
Walsh never said anything to me that suggested that she
was worried that her husband was on to us.
Speaker 2 (02:59):
And when Brian Walsh called him a couple of days
after Anna Walsh disappeared to I mean he was pretending
to ask him. He didn't pretend to ask him. He
asked him as if he didn't know where Anna Walsh was,
because he knew exactly where his wife's body was at
that point. But he was playing this worried husband didn't
know where his wife was. So even when he actually
(03:22):
called and left messages for her lover, who then called
him back, there was never an accusation or a discussion
or I know what you two have been up to.
It was just simply him saying, do you know where
Anna is? Could you go by the house. He was
their real estate agent. He sold the Walshes their home
in DC that she was living in while she worked there,
(03:42):
so there would be a reason why they would have talked.
But yeah, he never made it seem like he was
even wondering about their relationship.
Speaker 1 (03:51):
So if and to hear the guy William Fastel on
the stand, if she was concerned at all that her
husband was about to find out, obviously the first person
she would alert is this guy. For him to say,
not a moment that was significant. If I'm sitting on
(04:13):
that jury, so we are you put yourself in their position.
That brings doubt about at least that part of the motive.
I mean, he's not guilty, but at least I'm taking
that off the table. Is why he could have possibly
wanted to kill it.
Speaker 2 (04:25):
I've already seen news reports about people saying that this
does put the first degree murder charge in question with
what they've seen so far and that you know his
best he's probably hoping in the defense is hoping that somehow,
we don't know how this legally would work, but he
is obviously hoping for a second degree murder charge or
a manslaughter charge. Conviction or not guilty obviously would be
(04:46):
the number one, but he's hoping because he doesn't want
to obviously spend the rest of his life in prison,
which would be automatic if he were convicted a first
degree murder.
Speaker 1 (04:54):
I was looking at this rope to you and I
had been discussing this. I believe the defense can ask
I believe they can write that right, they can ask
for a lesser if the jury can consider a lesser charge.
Speaker 2 (05:04):
Correct, And I believe that is what they will likely do,
or at least that's what legal experts are saying after
what they've seen in this first week, that may be
what the defense will do. But the testimony today is
resuming with the chief medical examiner who was still on
the stand on Friday. He will come back today, but
he began testifying on Friday afternoon. He was telling the
(05:25):
jury about whether or not they could find or discern
any human tissue on any of those items that they
showed the jury in person from the dumpster. We're talking
about the hatchet, the hack saw. They were trying to
see if they could find any sort of human remains,
but they have not been able to find any part
(05:46):
of Anna Walsh at all, including her cell phone. Her
cell phone has never been found.
Speaker 1 (05:51):
The medicals this was the red brown staining guy. Yes,
they kept saying, repeating that I have that right. Was
it red brown stain, red brown stain? My goodness, Yes,
that was some of that Testimoni's a little grind when
you consider what potentially did happen to her. To see
some of those items, to see some of those stains, frankly,
to see a hatchet and shears and things like that.
Speaker 2 (06:09):
It was disturbing. It was disturbing. Something else that was
really interesting that happened on Friday. So they had a
digital forensic and analyst on the stand who was going
over We mentioned Ana's phone is missing, but Brian's phone.
So we've heard so much about the searches, but these
were some of the messages that were on Brian's phone
right starting. I guess they on January second. So at
(06:32):
this point, now Brian has presumably or has been in
the process of dismembering Anna's body. Clearly he knows she's
dead on January second, even by his own admission. But
when you read some of these texts that he was
sending to Anna's phone, pretending to be nervous, literally covering
(06:54):
his tracks, Yeah, it's so eerie and creepy, and it
speaks to his level of just cover up. I guess
the manipulation.
Speaker 1 (07:02):
Well, I guess that's what this whole. I mean, it's
amazing to think that he thought this through to try
to cover tracks and to send these, but never gave
any thought to all those searches and anybody's going to
see those.
Speaker 2 (07:17):
It's busy how to get rid of a body after
a murder, right, Yeah, but so he left those searches
to be found by forensic experts. But listen to some
of these texts. We'll read them for you, because it
just speaks to his ability to manipulate and lie and
thinking that this was going to get him out of something.
So on January tewod he sends this text to his
(07:42):
dead wife Anna, Hello, Thomas found the phone playing on
William's bed exclamation point. William said he forgot it was there.
Exclamation point haha, Okay, call any time. So he's talking
about their kids to her again she's dead. Then about
five hours later he writes, Hello, where are you? Please call,
(08:03):
text or email. Exhausting day with the boys and we
had fun going to bed early. Big day tomorrow for everyone.
I still love you three exclamation points. Haha, I don't know.
Speaker 1 (08:16):
Yeah, he's trying to set up a trail that he
thinks is going to save him, or at least suggest
his innocence that he was concerned about his wife and
I had no idea she was missing.
Speaker 2 (08:27):
Let's move on to the next day, January third, Hello,
this is at six point thirty nine am. Where are you.
I'm worried. Please call or email. Two hours later, where
are you? I just called and it went straight to voicemail,
calling you in Viber. Now maybe he meant to say, uber,
I will call after I drop the boys. If I
(08:47):
don't hear from you this morning, I am going to
report you missing. Four hours later, Hello, I texted your
sister and Alyssa. I am calling Jeff if I don't
hear from you, Where are you seven hours later, Hello,
where are you? The boys and I are worried. I'm
calling work tomorrow if I don't hear from you. So
still now this is January third. He hasn't heard from
(09:08):
her since January one, still hasn't called police, which of itself.
Speaker 1 (09:14):
I don't care what kind of relationship you have. You
don't have him your spouse for forty eight hours, right,
you're going to send a text saying where are you?
Speaker 2 (09:23):
So yes, and then like with lots of exclamation points.
And then January fourth, so again, this is the day
where her work actually reported on a missing He did not.
He texts where are you? With like seven question marks
at ten o'clock in the morning and then says, I
am calling Jeff. Now I believe Jeff was her boss
at work. But again, we don't even have word that
(09:44):
that happened. He just he was trying to leave messages
for police to find later, to show that he was
worried about his wife, even though he never called them
to tell them that she was missing.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
I think that's probably somewhere and like police on one, if
a spouse is missing and she's reported missing by someone
other than her spouse, immediately arrest like spouse, arrest that person.
You don't report, sweetheart, I know if you know, that's
(10:17):
that in of itself. Okay, we get it, and you
try to leave open this possibility. Robe and a reminder, folks,
he says, and his defense is claiming he went upstairs
after going downstairs to clean the kitchen, went back upstairs.
This is New Year's Day. She's on the bed dead,
doesn't know how she died completely unexplained, So sudden unexplained death,
(10:39):
which is something in the medical community that's out there.
It happens, we're going to have to hear some expert testimony,
are we not robes at some point in this trial
from some doctor saying this is possible.
Speaker 2 (10:51):
I think everyone agrees, especially when you heard Larry Tipton's
opening statement to the jury. They absolutely implied that they
were going to provide an explanation from an expert to
discuss how they are proposing on a Walsh actually died.
But it is interesting, and when we come back, we
(11:11):
will talk about the inroads the defense made on cross examination.
So we just read to you those text messages that
are pretty damning when we know what we know now
about where he was in this process of disposing of
his wife's body and yet leaving these apparent text messages
to her. Well, the defense made some major headway on
(11:33):
cross examination with that same witness on Friday, and this
again goes to motive. They are tearing apart the prosecution's
case that he knew about his wife's affair. And welcome
(11:56):
back everyone, we are talking about the Brian Walsh trial. Well,
week two is now officially underway, but last week there
was some pretty incredible testimony and a lot of the
progress made was by the defense. On Friday, Larry Tipton,
we have been talking about how phenomenal of a job
(12:17):
he's been doing so far. In the first word out
of his mouth, yes, I mean you knew that Brian
Walsh was getting as good of a defense and legal
representation as you could possibly get, because this is a
tough case from any defense attorney's perspective. You've got a
lot of really damaging, almost seemingly impossible evidence to overcome
(12:41):
when you look and see what the prosecution is presenting
about Brian Walsh's role in his wife's disappearance and murder.
But this is what Larry Tipton was able to chip
away at premeditation. With this witness that was on the
stand on Friday, talking about those text messages, talking about
those searches, he made this point there were no searches
(13:02):
about how to dispose of a body or clean up
blood or anything that implied dealing with the murder before
the morning of January first. That's significant because if he's
putting all these searches into play and not worried about
who might find them the day that she went missing,
(13:25):
the day that she died, If he were planning this,
wouldn't you think he would have done that beforehand, or
at least was preparing in some way.
Speaker 1 (13:35):
Oh, there is enough. They have not proved motive or premeditation,
in my opinion, again, putting myself in a position if
I were sitting on that jury, that's enough for me
to quite Now. I'm still listening, prosecutors to what you got,
but at least two things you told me. This doubt
is reasonable, and you might even argue provable with some
(13:57):
of this that they're lining up. How is this man
on January twenty fifth and whatnot looking for rings for
his wife, looking for a Porsche for his wife, making
all these plans for dinner, reservations and all this stuff.
Nothing suggests again, this is before, this is before New Years,
this is before. Yes, this sounds like he is actually
(14:17):
a pretty happy in his marriage.
Speaker 2 (14:19):
Sounds like he's happy in his marriage, talking about buying
expensive champagne Zillow listings. They showed messages he had he
had this forensics digital forensics guy read aloud the messages
where the couple were exchanging I love you, love you
back and forth, lovingly sharing pictures and photos of what
they were doing. This is all between December twenty fifth
(14:41):
and December thirty first, so in that period where you
would say, or at least the prosecutors are trying to say,
he was preparing to murder his wife. All of the
messages between the two of them seemed to be loving,
and his searches up until the thirty first are all
about loving his wife and lavishing her with gifts. In fact,
they did say this was an important point they made
(15:04):
speaking of searches. On December twenty fifth, we now know
that Anna Walsh was with her lover, but her flight
actually did get canceled and he was upset about this.
They've all testified that there was a bit of a
fight between the two of them because he was upset
she wasn't with him, but his searches that day Anna
Walsh found dead Christmas Day plane crash. He was worried
(15:26):
about her. He was worried that something had happened. He
hadn't gotten worried that her flight had been canceled yet,
and he hadn't heard from her. We now know she
was with her lover, but he was afraid that something
happened to her, like in a loving, concerned way.
Speaker 1 (15:40):
I'm trying to think of the other one. But there
have been a lot of messages in internet searches and
stuff that's been shared, and then there are some that
break through that I think kind of shut the door
prove a point, right, Mike Drop that's one of them.
When you see this guy has no idea any of
this stuff is going to be seen. He's not trying
(16:00):
to stage analibi at this point. This is around Christmas,
and he's worried about where is she. That is genuinely
a dude concerned about his wife. You cannot look at
that any other way. So how do we go from
that concerned about her safety, not wondering who she with
and not looking up all these searches about some other man.
(16:22):
So how do we go from that to her dead
on January one? You cannot tell me. The motive and
the premeditation is because he's upset about his wife's affair.
Speaker 2 (16:32):
They've done a good job.
Speaker 1 (16:33):
So we are. I am blown away by this defense already.
Speaker 2 (16:36):
It is remarkable, and so in terms of what the
prosecution is expected to continue to have witnesses take this
stand for the rest of this week. The defense could
possibly get their turn by the end of this week
or the beginning of next week. But we do know
we don't know a lot about the witnesses the prosecution
is going to put out this week. They didn't give
(16:57):
a witness list on Friday, but they have said that
we're going to hear from Anna Walsh's former boss that
was the man who was with them on New Year's Eve,
and perhaps, I guess is the last person outside of
her family to have seen her alive and can speak
to what Anna and Brian were like on New Year's
(17:18):
Eve together interacting. I think that will be so fascinating.
But he is a prosecution witness, so I'm very much
looking forward to that and I think we are expecting
other investigators to continue to testify about the evidence that
they do have. But at the end of last week,
I think you and I both agree the defense has
(17:40):
done the best possible job they could have and actually
exceeded expectations.
Speaker 1 (17:45):
Given what they have to work with. So we're keeping
an eye on this. Today testimony expected to be a
full day again. Top right corner of that Apple podcast
app where you see our show page, she flicked that
button that says follow you will get these updates coming
to you, and we will have it least one, maybe
even two more today depending on what happens in the case.
But for now, for my dear Amy Robot, I'm TJ. Holmes.
(18:07):
Talk deal soon.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com